The most subversive question, why?

This powerful speech from the recent Imperialism on Trial event in Derry is flawed to the extent that it perpetuates some myths associated with left wing ideology - left/right are two sides of the same coin of centralised power - but nonetheless resonates with truth in its critique of the ruling classes and the prevailing narrative of the self-righteous. John Wight asks the most subversive question, why?

In opposing the evil consequences of imperialism and the current political economy, we invariably run the risk of conflation and confusion as half-truths and misconceptions cloud judgement and clarity. In critiquing concentrated power, its motivation and consequences, we're apt to polarise between binary concepts of right and wrong, good and evil etc. In reality our world is infinitely more complex and nuanced. So in seeking to understand our world, we must be open to the idea that concepts and tools associated with power are not inherently good or evil; understanding the importance of mysticism is an essential element of our learning.

The Beginner’s Guide to Metaphysics by Anthony Tyler
In today’s society, “magic” and “religion” have become loaded words. From a scientific perspective, they have become akin to fairy-tales, folklore, and psychological simplicity. Those who find the value in it are sometimes treated with a condescending nature, or politely asked how they could put some much merit into “blind faith.” While it’s true that at times it does misplace and mis-interpret the idea of faith, considering religion and magic (or mysticism, as they will be referred to together from hereon out for scholastic reasons) a psychological crutch is not only incredibly conceited, but also incredibly illogical and irrational.
The mind of the modern, science-exclusive person, paints as many broad strokes in ideology as the mysticism it critiques, and today the theories of the Big Bang and even Darwinism and Relativity are indeed contested due to their scientific discrepancies. This is not to say that they are entirely untrue, but that they are merely incomplete in their current representations. Some may scoff at the idea, but there is a great deal of philosophy (most notably David Hume) that strongly argues how the idea of “empiricism” (empirical deduction in science) cannot be a truly objective form of investigation. This is not meant to discredit the value of empirical thought, but rather to equate ideas of mysticism and science through the common denominator of theory – nothing is set in stone, and so all is subject to change. After all, the data may be accurate, but human error in translation of the data will be ever-pervasive.

Please register to post comments